evnfandomcom-20200213-history
User talk:Joshbaumgartner
Welcome! Welcome to the EVN Wikia. Thank you for your contributions, though seperate articles for all the systems and planets is hardly neccesary, due to the fact that very few of them are notable. Please add planets and systems to the article List of Systems and Planets. See the talk page for guidelines on how to add to the list. For other articles, it is best to refer to existing articles on how it should appear. I hope to see you make more contribtions in the future. JoshTigerheart 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC) System and planet articles I merged and redirected your articles into List of Systems and Planets as per the discussions in previous AfD talks. See EVN Wiki:Articles and files for deletion for the dicussions. Essentially, all non-important systems, planets, and stations do not get their own article. The ones that are important enough, such as Sol, Aurora, Rebel I, and so forth do get their own articles. Also, please refrain from using copy and pasted text from EVN itself, as it is a violation of copyrights, since EVERYTHING written here is under the GNU Free Documentation License. In other words, it's nearly public domain (but not quite). Finally, try to avoid making articles completely out of lists, such as many of your planets unfortunately were. Articles such as the list article are the exception, since they basically compile a bunch of information that would not be worthy to be split into individual articles. The EVN Wikia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. Hence, we can't include every little gameplay detail, such as lists of outfits at every system. However, such information would be useful to someone. If you're interested in compiling information like that, you may want to consider completing it into a single document and submitting it to GameFAQs. Not only will it get posted, so long as it is formatted correctly, but you'll also have copyrights to your guide, which means people like me can't come in and ruthlessly edit them. However, I would like to point out that you did a good job with the brief descriptions you did in the List of Systems and Planets article were very good an encyclopaedic for the most part. Keep those type of contributions up and that huge list oughta be tackled in no time. And for the sake of mentioning it, my merges had nothing against you in any way, shape or form. Malicious editing is bad. JoshTigerheart 02:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC) While I understand the point of view, the problem is many planets in Nova don't have much more information available than what you see in the planet description and in the bar description (where applicable). Hence the reason for the list. However, there are plenty of planets that do need their own articles or need to be expanded. Some examples are New England, Ar'Za Iusia, Aurora (this one needs to be rewritten for the planet, not the system), all the Auroran house homeworlds, Rebel I, Rebel II, New Ireland, etc. An example of one that's in pretty good shape is Earth and should probably serve as precedent. Also, on second thought, removing the "Main article" link to Viking was probably wrong, since Viking is rather important (I was doing things assembly style and did that by mistake), so that article can stay. It just needs a bunch of information regarding it's heavy importance in the Pirate string added on, among other things. :If the problem is that there wasn't enough information to expand beyond a stub, then it would seem that when more information is made available (more than can comfortably fit within a system's blurb) that would negate this problem. If that isn't the rationale, then where is the line between what warrants an article, and what doesn't? Is there a panel of EVN gurus who pass judgment on what they feel is a "major" versus a "minor" world? Saying that no one can add a "minor" planet while there are "major" planets lacking an article also carries a level of editorial judgment that I don't see the need to make. The only basis I see for determining which planets (or other items) warrant an article is whether enough information exists in the article to make it no longer a stub. Even a stub should be allowed to exist long enough for others to have the opportunity to add such info. If a stub hangs around without addition for a while, then yes, that is when it should be deleted. Joshbaumgartner 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Systems themselves aren't that important. All that can really be mentioned (that is revelant) is what planets are there, what the traffic is like, and not much else. As for the system hazards themselves, maybe they oughta be comprised into an article headed "System Hazards" or something like that, since not much can be said on "Heavy Radar Interference" by itself, except that it is annoying. :Again, I think the basis should be whether there is enough text to go beyond what comfortably fits in the list blurb. If there is information beyond what fits in the listing, then it needs a place to reside. If all there is to say about it can fit in the list, a separate location is unneeded. Joshbaumgartner 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) As for the AfDs, most of those lasted for several months, whereas they're only supposed to remain a week. I made several notifications in the talk page, but got very little response (but some votes at least). So, after several months of virtual inactivity there, I was forced to act on what little there was, as much as I hated to. The vote on Arpia was supposed to be over several weeks ago, but I'm not about to act on my vote alone, especially since it isn't a "speedy delete" request. :I'm not intimating that you were hasty in the past. The low participation is to be expected on a wiki like this one. However, what it does mean is that when someone does offer another view, it shouldn't be simply said that the issue was decided in the past and thus is not to be discussed (I'm not thinking this is your view, by the way). Joshbaumgartner 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) :Additionally, may I ask why, if as you state regarding Arpia that you are "not about to act on (your) vote alone", you did so in a most speedy manner regarding Tidal or Skye, neither of which had a previous AfD? Joshbaumgartner 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) And bear in mind I do a bit of contribution on Wikipedia off and on, hence my views on how things should be handled follow their policy a bit. Hence why I've been doing alot of merging, clean-up, and proposing for deletion over the past few months since I've started to use those guidelines. :Interesting. I have the same user name there, so it is easy to see I have several years of Wiki contributions myself in a number of areas. Cleanup is vitally important there because of the sheer volume of work. However, this is a lot smaller wiki and consequently slower in contributions and the like. Editing should reflect this, for example, leaving stubs a little longer to grow into an article. One of the most important aspects of Wiki is to not delete information (provided it doesn't violate content guidelines of course). Merges, renames, and even deletions are all handled in such a way to make sure no real information gets lost, just moved to where it should appropriately be and duplication avoided. Joshbaumgartner 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Some good areas to expand in would, of course, be planets (and stations too...I'm thinking about moving the List article to a new heading so people don't feel stations should be excluded...or maybe split them because the article might get too big....hmmmm), big and major plugs, the Nova community, the developers of the game, and maybe even people in the community (well known people and plug/utility developers specifically). Also, quite a few of the outfit, weapon, and ship articles could use some clean-up and possible expansion I'm sure. We may have nearly 400 articles, but at least quite of few of them need significant work still. JoshTigerheart 03:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC) :I understand, but the nature of a wiki is for each contributor to be able to add where and when they have the ability, knowledge, and interest to do so. Wikis aren't books being orchestrated by an editor-in-chief. I agree that the most important items should have the strongest coverage, but the best way to get there is to promote as much contribution as possible in all areas. :Overall, I must hold to my request that the information I have begun to add be restored, as it seems you are saying on one hand that certain articles should be deleted because they do not have enough information to warrant being an article, while on the other, you are deleting the very information that is in them. This seems counter-intuitive, and I'm sure is not what you intend, hence my request that you not be so quick to delete, and instead give a little time for things to grow into a useful reference. I am going to restore the deleted data for now, remove copyrighted material, and then I will propose the utility of that information on the community pages. Please do not repeat the quick delete, as my intention is not an edit war, but instead to create a valuable resource. After this has been on the community pages for a while, and if it is then determined, you can go ahead with the deletions. Joshbaumgartner 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) ::I'm assuming you're an inclusionist, correct? ::Anyways, the spobs and systems I converted into redirects had all revelant information merged into List of Systems and Planets...or would have if you hadn't already put all the revelant information there. No useful information was lost, just the crufty lists of outfits, ships, and commodities available, which is very game guidy and isn't what the EVN Wiki is. Anything notable about the outfitters or such on any planet can be included in it's description or in the "Notes" sections, as the links just waste space on the page and also start spamming up the Wanted Pages. Pages that are deleted are usually considered useless. For example, the UGF images that were not being used in any of the articles (and really had no place here), Polaris Civil War (the letter 'c' isn't needed and the information belongs in Polaris. All of Alderbaraan's information and its spobs was moved into the List of Systems and Planets article and actually gained a little bit of information in the process, as opposed to loosing it. In other words, these aren't AfD's, but rather merges. I did delete the lists because they were, again, rather useless and game guidy. ::What I'm going to do is add merge templates to all of the systems and spobs that aren't notable in their own right. If there is sufficient arguments against merging (given the past AfD arguments have set precedents we oughta follow). then they can stay. Otherwise they'll be merged back to the List article and the pages protected if neccesary (which I'd really, really hate to have to do). JoshTigerheart 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) :::Addendum: I just noticed you replied to each section of my last comment. That was very confusing and I missed it. I noticed it simply because I thought this page looked a little long. :::The reason worlds were speedy merged was following precedent of the AfD discussions, which closed only weeks ago. Hence, all the merges from that by itself haven't taken place yet. It isn't an age old discussion deciding this, but a very recent, very revelant to today discussion, whereas the possible deletion of Arpia has no precedent to follow, being more of a unique circumstance in that it is plug information outside the plug's article (and is using space that a plug by the same name deserves). You are free to open the policy for discussion on the community portal if you wish. :::Also, most of these planets will never have new information available. While someone might make Tidal important in a plug, this isn't a plug-in Wiki and wouldn't cause Tidal to gain it's own article. Otherwise, Outbound would be highly deserving of it's own article due to its involvement in the ARPIA2 plug. Commoddity goods will never have new information available. We know opals are valuable and they can be mined and sold. There's nothing else we can learn. If Nova revealed in high detail how opals were used in making Heavy Blaster Turrets (they aren't, by the way), it would deserve its own article. Hence, these articles should be merged to articles that keep all the information located in one place for easy access, rather than forcing a reader to dance around the EVN Wiki just to find what few lines (if that) of revelant information there is on Food and Spica. JoshTigerheart 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry Didn't mean to come off sounding combative, might be because I'm in a bit of a hurry to make the replies and slap on all the merge templates before I go to work. I judged, by your ability to use redirects, templates, etc. that you were a fairly experienced editor would have recognized the terms. Maybe they're not used heavily outside Wikipedia? Anyways, "cruft" is essentially "useless and/or extraneous information". For example, listing all the items in Super Smash Brothers would be considered cruft, as it really doesn't benefit the article. Likewise, listing all the outfits available at a spob would be cruft. It would be useful in a game guide, but not here. "Game guidy" means information that would be relevant to a game guide. In other words, how to play the game. At the EVN Wiki, we do allow some game guidish information in the "notes" section of articles in the form of hints, tips, etc. We also use templates to list the stats of ships and weapons. Beyond that, however, the rest of the article should be information about the subject in question in general. I.E: "What is Viking?", not "What can I buy at Viking?". The notes section of Viking could make mention that they carry Pirate ships and "seedier" outfits, but a whole list is hardly neccesary or useful. The use of protection is something I'd rather avoid. It wouldn't be used to prevent futhur edits, more to enforce whatever consensus results of the merge discussions. I.E., if consensus was to not merge and someone kept doing it, I'd protect the page to stop them. If the consensus was to merge and someone kept merging, I'd protect the page to stop them. As a side note, going by Wikipedia policy, such discussions aren't straw votes, but rather is determined by whichever side makes the best argument. So if there are 40 votes to merge but give no reasons, while only 2 not to merge with great arguments, the two will win. Confusing, yes, but it's how it goes there and I'm relying on Wikipedia policy. You are mistaken in my actions, yes. I've been acting out of precedent of the recent AfD discussions on Archive 1. When looking at the articles, I'm asking myself "If the Wraith homeworld was agreed to not have it's own article, why should Tidal, which is even less important?" Hence I came up with the List of Systems and Planets so all those "not so important" worlds can have information. And a world warrants it's own article is if it can have more than a Lead paragraph about it, excluding all the lists of services. This is because there are something like 200+ spobs in the game. And yes, if you notice a major world lacking an article, please, by all means, create it. Now I need to get ready for work, I think I'm going to be late. JoshTigerheart 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Project Page I created a project page at EVN Wiki:Projects and linked it to the community portal. Please move your project request from the portal to the project page...and perhaps elaborate on it a bit, as not everyone knows what a gazateer is. JoshTigerheart 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :Thanks! Things have kicked up a notch at work so it may take a couple days, but I will indeed do that. And gazetteer might not be the right word...but yes, I'll have to add a little more detail. Joshbaumgartner 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I agree I was reading JoshTigerheart's talk page and I read your question and I agree with what you said Pizzaguy573 00:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)